Lots of controversy about this one. The first shot was a complete miss....the second "mid-body"; they couldn't initially tell as the range was too far...

IMHO, I would have enjoyed stalking it to 200 yards or so and make the shot.

I would venture to say that Danner Davidson has more spent primers to his name that many on this forum. I can guarantee you he has more long range practice than most shooters. He also had a full team supporting the shot.

The shooter, regardless of age, was competent and practiced enough to make that shot.

Would/could I make an attempt at that shot? No, even though I have gear fully capable of it, I know that I am not.

That's a long ways!

I'd call it not so hot, not because of the distance, but because he didn't hit first shot. That can happen at any distance.(yes it's happened to me, too so no one thinks I'm preaching from the choir

Someone, trigger man, or the guy giving instructions, wasn't 90% certain.

The kid gets no kudos for being 12 years old.His old man should not start him out that way IMHO. You gotta learn to walk before you can run.

In agreement here!

Easily erroring on the side of caution I would vote unethical. At least this type of shot is not what I would be choosing to encourage my son or any other shooter, young or old to pursue. Paper and steel at this distance are fine and fun. I would take much more satisfaction in closing the distance to less than 400 yards.

Maybe just my perspective here, though I would prefer to see the distance to be closed to 200 yards or less, with 400 yards at max. At 1000 plus yards a lot may go wrong, from accuracy related concerns to calling distance ,wind and simple potential for shooter error in the field. Then there comes the question of terminal performance of the bullet at that distance.

In this case the stars came together. Truly prefer not to encourage anyone else to feel comfortable to take this kind of shot on a magnificent game animal.

I wouldnt want him shooting at me

It worked this time, but that won't always be the case. And I bet we won't see or hear about that one. I think it is poor way to start a kid shooting. It is not hunting.

Age does not matter, I don't like the long range hunting game. For many, it seems the trophy is the distance. Too much can go wrong at 100 yards, this increases the risk. Animals deserve better.

I have two issues with the scenario.

1. Can the shooter successfully make that shot at least 90% of the time in practice, under similar conditions? If the answer is no (and I'd wager a lot that it is in this case), I consider the shot to be unethical.

2. Was this about hunting elk or making a long shot? I see it as the latter, which is poor ethics in my opinion. Slap steel at extreme distances if that's what you're after. Game animals deserve our best efforts, as hunters, to get in positions that allow for clean harvests. Pretty hard to argue that happened here.

Looked to me like it was all about the video, which is a shame IMO. I didn't hear them call out the range after the elk moved. A 10-yard error at that distance is not insignificant. Did he say it was the kid's first elk?

Sure takes a lot of the hunting out of hunting. Tom

Have never shot out that far, I consider 600 years my max. I personally would prefer not to make a shot past 300, but to each his own. I am not a fan of the "long range" hunting, but I don't believe that its morally wrong. What I do find offensive is the high fives, etc after killing an animal. It Just show lack of respect for the animal that God placed on this earth for me to enjoy seeing and eating.

So a animal died just to demonstrate the skill of a kid?
If so don't call it hunting.

Fixed it for you.

Impressive shot no doubt, especially by a 13 yr. old but I didn't even bother watching the video, extreme long range shooting removes the element of hunting I enjoy most. I believe all hunters need to stick together so I'm not going to pass judgement but sometimes I think it really boils down to how much money you have to spend on equipment, range time & load development, kind of like hunting many of the ranches in Texas. I am sure that kid has done quite a bit of long range practice but the fact that a 13 year old made the shot kind of lends to the theory that it's all about how much money you have to throw at it...

I personally would be more impressed if he shot it from 5 yards with a bow or had to make a quick freehand shot at 100 yards or so with a rifle, that is the essence of hunting, this is something else, I'm not going to say it is wrong but it has nothing to do with the aspects of hunting I fell in love with as a boy.

That's exactly what they want you to believe. If you spend $X,XXX on this equipment, you, too, can make 1,376 yard shots on game animals. This video is nothing more than a commercial that happened to involve an elk getting killed.

For whatever reason the kid didn't seem very enthusiastic


Mike

How many did he wounded before he got one to brag about?

We can call it whatever anyone wants to call it.

Kill the animal cleanly and recover it, I"ve zero issues with it. Whether I'm capable or not is not an issue to this or anyone else, IMO.

Legal and dead, thats what the goal is.

Hunt em your way, let them hunt or "shoot" em their way.

I put John Burns in this same camp. He's promoting this sort of unethical "shooting" (I can't call it hunting) too and promoting his long-range gear.

Funny how John Burns disappeared from the 300 Weatherby thread once he saw that people genuinely realize how unethical he is.

I'm not impressed with the video, the guys behind the camera or the kid. They need to learn what "1 shot, 1 kill" means... As soon as the shooter learns to do so on a consistent basis, then range/distance has no meaning as far as ethics and I am concerned. The nut behind the butt and the guys telling him to take the shot were being very "unethical". I could care the fu ck less how old the kid was or who he is..

Good post..

You shoot Doves you don't hunt them, same situation here with this Elk. Obviously hunting is not a prerequisite for tagging game animals. However, I think it makes it much more rewarding.

Ethics has become an undefinable notion any more. Time of flight on that bullet would still allow that elk to change position enough to make it a bad shot.

First elk at 1376 yards and first shot is a miss, the adults should be ashamed and the kid should be sent through another hunter education course...

If he can make the shot, "ethical" has nothing to do with it.

That was a long poke.
Looked like there was time and cover to get quite a bit closer, although there are no guarantees.

I would think twice before hunting with that group again after that spectacle.

Personallly when it starts to get what I call long... I'll take a zero shot first to test my swag... just how I prefer to roll.

But ethics are what each person feels is right or not...

Those that don't feel right, don't do it, those that do, go ahead

I still guarantee all you flipping bitchin idiots on this thread that more are wounded up close by idiots that shouldn't even be in the field than are by long range shooters.

Not directed at smokepole, just replying in general.

Show me you can make that shot 9 out of 10 times and I'll agree with you... He missed the first shot-game over.

I wasn't referring to the kid, I was referring to John Burns. The subject of your post that I quoted.

When my sons were that age I was teaching them how to stalk and maneuver as close to the animal as cover permitted. It would be close enough to where we would have to use hand signals and not speak in a normal voice.

Sorry, but to me that wasn't hunting,that was just shooting.

Apparently you've never done any shooting with JB, I have.
It may be worth your time to get out of your comfort zone and see what can be done with proper equipment and a ton of practice, even if you'd never hunt at extended range.

As for the youngster shooting that bull, It's not how I hunt but I don't feel the need to look down my nose and condemn them for not meeting my standards.

To me hunting is getting as close to the animal without getting busted by the animal. Knife, spear,archery, muzzle-loader or rifle. Long range is shooting. Too many variable that can go wrong shooting long range at animals in my opinion. Shooting at paper, steel targets or rocks at long range is a different story. They normally don't move after the shot!

I wouldn't want anyone shooting at you...

My boys and I practice shooting long range a lot,and they both shoot very well.great fundamentals. They also hunt with me all the time and are savy hunters. Our goal, get as close as possible,but be able to make long shots if necessary. Both have made long shots. My oldest boy shot a 170 inch mule deer at 410yds. My youngest shot a nice antelope at 385yds. Both were 1 shot kills with my 243. If I told you how old they each were when they made the shots, you wouldn't believe me. This year,one shot a deer at 100yds,the other shot his at 180yds and my bull was 200 yds.all off our sticks, all 1 shot kills. I say all this to make the point that regardless of how far you choose to shoot,it takes lots of practice and repetition. Also all our shooting is from hunting positions,never from the bench after load development was done.

Thumbs down from me but I have a killed a total of four elk all less than 100 yards. I'm just not into long range shooting.

Not

Elk are not the enemy. They deserve better than to be subjected to stunts.

As hunters we have a lot more latitude of this ever more accruing spectacle as that is what I personally see it as, a spectacle and its selfish too. But as previously stated it is legal and the elk was dispatched and hopefully the meat will be enjoyed. But I do wander since it is out there for the world to see what non-hunter’s (not anti-hunters but non-hunters) perception of that spectacle is?

Hard tellin. None of us know the trigger time that kid has. It's quite possible that at that range the kid made a better shot than had they put on a stalk. A long stalk and his imagination running wild w a pulse thumping his heart out his chest and maybe that bull runs off wounded and never recovered. Maybe.

That being said. I can't Imagine ever taking that shot. Or letting my kid. Nice big bull that's forsure.

I am sad for the kid. He's being prodded to shoot after a clean miss. His lack of excitement in the end makes me wonder. His first elk and he's not exactly excited. ???

Stunt.

That bull was too far for me to shoot comfortably but I don't have a 1360 yard gong in my back yard.

The youngster seemed excited enough for a guy doing his job while on camera. This is the family business and this is a commercial being filmed so it is work.

There are lots of hunters taking 250 yard shots with a lower chance of success than this young man has with that shot. Knowing in that uncontrolled environment that the bull can take 2 steps in the time the bullet is in flight makes it a little dodgy ethically for me - but he's eating elk burgers and showing off antlers so it wasn't beyond his skill level.

Well, agreed controversy is deep. LOL

We all need to remember, we are all lovers of firearms, hunting and what not. How ever you decide to do those two, thats on you. Its not wrong, its not unethical and its using the great outdoors. Ethical is a personal feeling. It only becomes unethical if your abilities are nothing more than luck. If you abilities make it possible to shoot long distance, have at it. Not my choice but I am not hunting that way either. I condemn not and support all means of hunting as long as the kills are ethical. As for more than one shot to humanly kill your Elk, all of us have taken more than one shot one time or another. Same argument as scoped BlackPowders. Lets all stay together. Long distance is a talent, a sport and quit an accomplishment. Have fun.

Maybe he CAN do it, but the question is whether he SHOULD do it. At that range there are too many variables, especially in elk country. There are wind currents and a mobile target to consider. It's too easy to wound one.

Nope, and anyone who thinks differently doesn't really understand the biology and physiology of a 12 year olds brain/body. And to do it with the added pressure of a camera?? How many shots did he take at animals that DIDN'T get on camera?

Dad seemed way more into the shooting than the kid by a long ways.

But at 1376 yards, they could have built a picnic table with power tools to shoot off of and the elk wouldn't have even taken notice.

From his reaction, I think the kid would have had more fun playing video games at home. This was all about Dad.

That's truly one of the saddest things I've seen in a while. The kid had no interest in hunting and less than none in the elk. Dad is pimping his kid out to make a buck. The elk are simply reactive targets and opportunities to sell and ad for Dad; and the kid is a prop.

That's not hunting.

As long as that kid can put 90% of his shots into a big dinner plate at that range, it's perfectly fine by me.

But I bet he can't.

I sure hope I never need a "Support Team" to help me make a shot whilst hunting.

As to the kids excitement level,it appears to me that he is a cool customer. Beats the heck out of all these Nimrods on TV who pump their arms,do fist bumps,show me how bad their hand is shaking,and generally make an ass of themselves. I am embarrassed for them. They act like they have never shot anything before.

That may be true, but that kid was less excited about that elk than I was when I put my first tooth under the pillow for the tooth fairy..

My youngest lost a tooth a couple years ago and put it under his pillow. I forgot to put money out for it. In the morning he still had his tooth and wondered what was up with the tooth ferry. I told him that she had been on strike and had a back log to get caught up on. I put a couple bucks out that night, and all was good.

I find it somewhat sad that a bull elk has been reduced to nothing more than a living target for long range stunt target shooting. About the only times I would even consider trying to shoot something at even half than range are when I would be shooting at inanimate targets or at enemy soldiers who want to kill me.

I realize many people are very good long range shooters. One of my former coworkers is an internationally recognized 1,000 yard target shooter. I realize that hunters do miss or wound sometimes when shooting from short ranges.

This shot from over 0.8 mile away is just a stunt. I hope it will not encourage others to do likewise.

John_Gregori: I didn't even try to watch your video.
It sickens me to see turdlike nimrods TRYING to set up for these idioticly, long shots on game animals.
Typical of turdlike folks though, to say and try to do idiotic things and then publicly display same!
IF... a person interested in ethically bagging an Elk spies one at 1,376 yards then said person CAN and SHOULD make every effort to stalk closer.
I agree with you 100% - said "Hunters" should have stalked closer.
I feel bad for the Elk.
Typical turds!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Encouraging a 12 year old to shoot a game animal from a distance of over 3/4 mile hardly seems ethical, right, or wise. Numerous reasons for this have been stated in previous posts, so I will not reiterate them here. Those same reasons strongly support the notion that an adult choosing to shoot game animals at these same distances is unsportsmanlike, unethical, wrong and unwise. Similarly, identifying such acts as hunting is not appropriate.

The stunt featured in this video reminded me of a notion my brother's been beating his drum about for a decade. He refers to it as the "Pussification of the American Youth". Citing participation trophies, non-competitive sports, classes without grades, irrationally risk averse parenting strategies, etc., he points out the increasing rate at which Americans spoil their children to the disadvantage of these children and society in general. I'm not sure he's originally responsible for the colorful moniker "pussification", but I've always attributed it to him. Either way, I'd bet my brother'd see this stunt as more "pussification". Taking this a bit further towards its logical conclusion, I thought to myself, what's next? Maybe we should legalize hunting with drones, then our children could hunt from the safety and comfort of the couch in their suburban living rooms. Really, what's the difference? I agree, this was exotic target practice, devoid of any of the hard and real stuff that makes a hunt hunting. I'm in agreement with the rest of you who found this stunt sad and disgraceful.

I thought it was bogus but some of you guys could make the Pope look like a piker as far as pontification.

I didnt watch the video, but I understand the first shot was a clean miss. So what was his 2 shot group? 3 feet? 6 feet? Clearly he did NOT have the skill to make that shot consistently. He could have just as likely blew its jaw or knee off leaving that animal to die a horrible death. And I could care less how many primers he has burned, he did not possess the skill necessary to make that shot, evidenced by missing the animal completely.

WTF, Brag how close you got, not how far away you shot. That was a living animal not a steel plate. In that amount of time (bullet travel) the elk could have moved and the shot wounded his jaw or leg or gutshot and moved off and died else wear without a recovery.
Nothing ethical about that hunters shot.

Who was it that said any publicity is good publicity? They are getting what they want. Certainly there are more needy 12 Year olds being Abused by adults. He shot an elk, it was big, it was far away. WOW. Next.

I struggle with supporting this type of thing. Shooting is meant for ranges not on live targets. As a former hunter safety instructor we always taught students to respect the animal or bird and try for quick clean kills. I shoot 2-3 times a month off a bench and off various field setups. I would say 350 is my cut off point with a normal field weight gun and field conditions. Not a fan of super long range.

divide and conquer.. its in our own ranks....

This is the sad part of it all. There are a few among us that are always testing the limits. For fear of division among the ranks, there is always some justification for pushing those limits.

It wasn't that long ago and some computer geek was trying to sell the idea of shooting deer out of a tree stand with a computer and a mouse. Those that could stomach that philosophy are stretching that distance thing too far.

How far is too far, seems to be a question that doesn't have the perfect answer. Maybe a lazer guided missile would still be acceptable to some, where do you draw the line?

It is obvious that this video isn't about the shooting skill of this 12 year old kid, it is about the adults that are using a kid to legitimize their ambitions to make long shots look easy and foolproof.

The first shot was a complete miss, that should have ended the video, but no, they had him load up and shoot again. That kid had no more idea of shooting long range than he had of flying a jet. They just put him in the pilot's seat and handed him the controls.

I really hope this kind of stunt shooting goes away and people get enough sense to use their own skills to get close enough to make the shot or just not shoot...

Have read the replies and since I was not involved I have ought to say about the circumstance.

But good on the lad for not sitting about town with the other miserable little drongos making a nuisance of himself.

Just an opinion - I really think this is indicative of a sad shift occurring in the sport. I don't think it necessarily a good thing that "long distance" shooting is becoming the new "cool" thing to do.

I grew up with an entirely different focus and that was getting close enough to make a high probability ethical, one shot kill. It hasn't always worked out that way, but the goal remains get close and execute a one shot kill, while utilizing the skill of a hunter - stalking carefully, paying attention to stealth and what your stepping on, minimizing noise, mindful tracking, understanding the habits and movement of the quarry, noticing wind direction, applying scent control, and out maneuvering the animal to get close enough to it. Respect for the evolution of becoming a good hunter, and the trials and tribulations along the journey-- made success something enjoyable. Meat in the freezer is a reward for all of those factors coming together.

_________________

Anecdotely - in the last 4 years I have seen more wounded elk and deer, or found more dead/ elk and deer in the woods than in the past 10 years prior. I'm seeing an average of 5+ a year, whole animals that were shot and not recovered.

I can't say that this is directly related to the increase in long range hunting, but I can say that every year I see at least 2 or more people shoot from distances greater than 400 yards, they don't see an animal drop, and don't even go to check out if they hit the animal. As one of my buddies said to me, "some people just suck- doesn't matter if you meet them in the woods or while they are yelling at their 5 yr old at a t-ball game."

__________________

I personally watched that video over 1.5 years ago and commented to friends on what I thought was an extreme injustice to an impressionable young hunter.

To me it was a story of commercialism (gunwerks advertisement), exploitation of a young boy, and sad to see that was his first elk harvest.

Hunting IS and should BE , much more than a trigger pull and a harvest. The boy in the video was robbed of the journey of becoming an ethical hunter. By offering a short cut, the boy was forever influenced that his focus should be shooting and harvesting...foregoing the skill required to outsmart the quarry, and IMHO earn the animal/trophy.

I viewed that video with sadness.

Too much margin for error, as evidenced by the first shot. Too high a risk for wounding. They got lucky and hit center mass with the second, could have just as easily been a leg.

We haven't even talked about remaining energy at 1376.

NOT ethical.

Say whatever you want about the shot choice, but there's no way a kid killing a bull elk with any shot is contributing to the "pussification of American youth."

"Well, Son, that one got back up and got away. It's probably gut shot. Let's try for that one on the right this time."

And didn't.

My own opinion is it was shooting, not hunting.

But I feel that way about almost every shot I've seen on film.

"The shot" was the young man's trophy he was seeking in this case. The elk was just a participant in the process.....that's all.

Sickening to me, but that's only my opinion.

Part of the fun is smelling the elk when you are close enough. And hearing them talk to each other. I like the sound of them walking as they are feeding too. I shake too much for more than a 200 yard shot. I prefer a 50 yard shot.
The kid did good and it wasn't a video game.

This is my personal checklist of ethics.

1. Am I raising my children in a Christian way and taking the time needed to teach them moral fiber.

2 Am I faithful honest and true to the Misses as I promised.

3. Do I live my life according to bible principle.

4. Do I hunt for food or do I turn the gift of God into sport just as some do women and wine.



As I stated quite some time ago........I am a survivalist hunter. Probably the purist form of hunting there is. Any true survivalist hunter will always have the first three rules solidly fixed to his character and lastly hunts for provision

If you've never hunted in this pure form of humanship then you could never possibly understand the beuity of the pure hunt.


Shod

That is possibly the most arrogant description of hunting I've ever had the misfortune to suffer through.

Where does one buy a humanship? I need one for fishing.

Well, that is your opinion but a lot of people woill disagree. Including those "survivalist" hunters who don't have kids or a wife, may never have read the Bible or have a different faith or none at all and still manage to be good people who hunt for food, not sport.

Around the world there are many such people.

Having watched the video a second time I’d like to make a few observations for those who haven’t watched it at all:

1. The elk was at 1376 yards. According to the video there is a 24”gong at 1360 yards that “these boys shoot all the time”. Whether “these boys” includes the 12-year old kid or not is unclear and there is no mention of hit rates.
2. At the end of the video there was, not surprisingly, an overlay advertising Gunwerks.
3. There were at least 6 people involved in the filming of the video – 5 that you see in the video plus at least one more holding the camera. (And it wouldn’t surprise me if there were at least 2 unseen people in the camera crew)
4. It appears the “hunters” knew where the elk were before they climbed to the shooting position.
5. It also appears to me that the rifle was a short action which, if using cartridges listed on the Gunwerks web site would limit it to a 6XC (6mm).
6. It also appears there was plenty of opportunity to get closer to the elk.


I agree with 8SNAKE that “This video is nothing more than a commercial that happened to involve an elk getting killed.” The lesson for the kid that I would have preferred would have involved leaving the camera crew and other onlookers in their dust as the dad taught his kid how to stalk the elk to get as close as possible before shooting.

I can't wait until this sniper boy fantasy thing runs it's course.

I'm posting w/o reading more than the OP.

IMO, I don't care how much practice with whatever 'uber' long range rig A KID has....

A KID shouldn't be allowed to 'attempt' such XXXX !!

It might be legal (?) but WHY teach a 'KID' to start hunting errr correction 'sniping' or 'pot shooting' at such a young age?

I could say much more but it would only go DOWNHILL !! So I'll just stop.


Jerry

Having read some of your posts.. I think you are pretty close to right!!

Jerry

Lots of similar posts to this one. This makes no sense. A guy goes out there to KILL the animal. Where does the respect come in?

Ringman, you and I have gone around and around on the "respect" question before and I understand where you're coming from. The conventional meaning of "respect" doesn't really work when applied to animals that we hunt.

I think of it more in terms of how the general public sees hunters and hunting. Do they see hunters as showing a certain appreciation and esteem for the animals we hunt, or do they see us as using animals for target practice, with only disdain?

Sometimes I'd like to say "who cares what they think" but like it or not, we all should care. A wise man once said that in our modern society hunting as we know it will only continue to exist as long as the majority believes it's an honorable pursuit.

MY take: Kid shot roughly a 2 foot, 3 shot group. Missed one, gut shot 2, killed 3.

Is it then ethical if, IN A PRACTICAL SITUATION ON GAME, NOT ON PRACTICE TARGETS, to take a 100 yard shot on a deer, if the best one can do with the rifle/shooter/extraneous factors, is a 2 foot group at 100 yards with 3 shots? ("Team" or not!)

If it is not, then I suggest one should limit oneself to a 25 yard shot on a moose size target, in said practical (not practice) situations.

How did they determine the range? 2,000 yard range finder?

Never mind- I just googled it.

smokepole,

I don't think they treated the elk with "disdain," but it sure seemed like the shot was taken without regard whether the elk might be wounded by the first shot.

And while that sort of observation is often "countered" with the all-too-true argument that "short-range" hunters often wound game, that's as irrelevant as a teenager's excuse that "all the other kids do it." Wounded is wounded, whether it happens at 13 yards or 1376.

I wasn't referring to the OP or the video, just trying to respond to Ringman with an explanation of what people mean when they talk about respect for animals we're putting bullets into.

But come to think of it, shooting at an animal without regard to whether you kill it cleanly or just wound it comes pretty close to "disdain" in my estimation. If that first shot clean miss had been a little better it would've been a poor hit, and chances are they'd never have gotten the second shot or recovered the elk.

Only a fool would paint himself into that corner.

Only a fool would try to take the concept of "the pussification of American youth" and apply it to a kid killing a bull.

Now, go ahead and try to paint me into a corner.

I would call that "disdain" for the elk.

I've looked at the video several times but saw only two shots, not three.

Based on the father's description, though, it does appear it was about a 2 foot "group". Lots of opportunity for things to go wrong with a "group" that size. Primary consideration was to make the video. Concern that the elk might be wounded and lost appeared to be nil.

Let's delve further into the arena of disdain. In a previous thread we saw some videos of the Benoits shooting running Deer and it would be hard to argue against them being some of the best Deer hunters in America. I happen to wish I had their knowledge and ability. Yet I can guarantee you they have more than a few times hit Deer in spots most here would not consider to be a great shot.I can also be sure they have missed on the first-or second-go more than once. It happens when you take snap shots on quickly moving animals often with a small window.

The one frame showed a particular example. The Deer was hit high spine almost half way back. I doubt if that Deer went very far, but a little further off and chances are it would have been a tough recovery or perhaps and animal that eventually died without.

While they have made more than their share of one shot kills, they also hunt in a manner that a kill often comes about from more or less eventually breaking an animal down with multiple shots vs exact precise shooting.

Can't remember ever seeing them doing the high fives, which is something I disdain. In fact I prefer to walk up to a killed animal without anyone else being around.

I think few here would say the Benoits have disdain for the Deer they kill, yet from the way they hunt, you can bet money every shot isn't dead center perfect and some never find the mark. Yet they keep shooting until they no longer have anything to shoot at.

Just throwing some thoughts out onto the screen and I'm sure some will think the way the Benoits hunt is disdainful, based on where the bullets may sometimes land. I don't happen to be one of them.

Thought-provoking post, Harry. Once again, I brought up the word "disdain," and it wasn't in reference to the OP, it was a response to Ringman on the use of the word "respect."

Disdain isn't as strong a word as contempt, it just means "not worthy of consideration." Should an elk be worthy of consideration? Is an elk more worthy than a coyote? Lots of people (myself included) would think nothing of taking a low-percentage shot at a coyote but wouldn't do the same with an elk. Because we value elk more than coyotes. Most people do. That's why it costs so much for a NR to hunt elk but not a coyote.

As far as the Benoits, I think the comparison is apples and oranges. They developed their style of hunting to fit the animals and the cover they hunt. They track and then shoot moving animals because that's the best way to kill deer where they hunt. And yes, they might miss the first shot or wound a whitetail with a shot but I'd be willing to bet they're successful more often than not because they'e very good at what they do.

If they tried to hunt on their home turf like the guys in the video, we wouldn't be talking about them because no one would know who they are. But if they came out west and saw that bull at 1300 yards, I'm guessing they'd sneak in close and get a high-percentage shot, and it would be high-percentage regardless of whether the bull was moving or not.

I would tend to call it a another parent, who has likely not accomplished much in his life, living vicariously through his kids. Happens all the time. Pathetic all the way around is what I call it.

not..........any big game animal deserves a clean kill.....

Smoke:

Just throwing it out there for discussion.

Off for my WOD which would be trying to stay upright on a snowboard. Fat chance so far. Anyway glad you understand the value of a sense of humor.

Clean kill? There ain't no such thing. Sometimes it is just more palatable than others.

Smokepole,

You’ve seemed to argue that either the elk in this video was shot with disdain (or "near disdain") or was an inanimate long range target or both. To say that a 12 year old was capable of this kind of disdain is certainly reasonable. It is widely accepted that children exhibit sociopathic tendencies. Adults diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (a diagnosis recently reserved for adults by the DSM V) are often identified as having treated animals with cruelty as a child.

I ‘m not sure this is the case here and I’m pretty sure you don’t either, but it certainly could be. Rather, its seems much more likely that at a distance of 1276 yards for the 12 year old, the elk was an inanimate object. Watching his reaction in the video, it’s hard to tell what’s going on. It certainly should have become real when coming up on the animal during recovery. Again, it's hard to read what’s going on for him, as his father does most of the talking. The boy's only clear reaction is his smile when Dad high-fives him. I read that as a boy being happy that he pleased his father.

I haven't read all of the responses; so, pardon me if I am redundant. To me, three things stuck out like a turd in a punchbowl.

1) After that elk moved, nobody took another range reading. Isn't that an important factor in long range shooting? It is in my book. Especially after a first shot miss. At that point, didn't it just become guesswork?

2) That kid must be on valium. My kids got more excited smoking prairie dogs than that kid did shooting a nice bull. And when they each got their first elk, a cow each, you'd have thought my kids won the lottery. I'm not passing judgment, it just jumped out at me.

3) Holy crap, I've never hunted anything with an entire posse. Even if me and a group of friends that large went hunting together, we all split up as we headed into the field. Heck, that was an entire infantry squad of people.

I noticed that too, and I'm surprised no one else commented on it. Even if you're OK with that shot, not getting a new reading after the elk moved would have to be considered unethical. Ten yards makes a difference at that range.

TheBigSky,

My guess, after being involved in a few hunting videos, is the close-ups of getting the kid ready to shoot, and his shooting, were taken after the actual shot. Which is may be why he doesn't seem excited.

If the first shot was a miss, then the team was subsequently just trying for some sort of hit as opposed to an accurately placed killing shot. One out of three being a killer is crappy shooting in my book and regardless of who they are, they should question their abilities.

Ethics are of course a personal deal, and I know folks that will sling lead great distances hoping for a hit. Some don't mind either if it's 3 animals back and turns out to be a pronghorn fawn. That group's ethics are pretty poor and they'd not be invited into our party.

Wonder how many injured animals they've left out there?

That would make sense. There were probably even several takes taken both of that and the scene at the elk.

Not ethical, even if you can make a 1376 yard shot on a stationary target a 100 times. As many have already pointed out, in the time it takes the bullet to arrive the bull can move a huge distance. I hate to see a young man get his start "hunting" elk in that manner. Maybe shooting elk, but I won't call it hunting. We can disagree, but I am glad my Dad didn't start me that way.

To quote one of the posters above, the whole thing is bogus, all the way around... Really, the whole thing is just sad and disturbing. It's unfortunate that in the eyes of the public, every hunter will share in the guilt by association.

That is one of the single goofiest GD things I've ever had the misfortune of reading.

Tanner

You're just mad because you don't have a misses or children. Which means you couldn't possibly understand the purist form of hunting.

Pathetic.

Playing a video game with a gun.

Just pathetic.

A couple of observations. Ive been a competitive benchrest shooter for years, some years more competitive than others.The last 20 years have been more focused on 600yd bench rest- yeah less than 1/2 the distance the kid shot. Most of the people I share a firing line with have shot for years and have spared no expense on equipment. We all know in the minute from sight in to record fire the POI can shift inches sometimes several. With a solid bench, known range , wind flags, and a lot of etceteras. 1376 yds cold shot-HUH! If we play by military rules a wounded animal is OK. I dont think we want that. Another thought, say the animal runs 25 yd and piles up. If you dont have good fixed landmarks and a good spotter, can you be sure of recovery? I dont know. How many times can a clean miss be a clean miss? I dont know. I can come up with quite a few more musing on this topic, but as the majority here seems to think, the ethics are a bit questionable. Maybe like a commercial p.........g contest.
Even if I could I wouldnt.

I actually SAW the same effect a few yrs. ago on some hunting show. A young man -not a kid- sat by a tree on an open hill side and NON chalantly (routinely) made a shot showing NO emotion at all.

I had taped that episode, so I RE watched it. In one scene the MOON was full and CLOSE to the earth.

In the NEXT scene the MOON was very FAR away!! STAGED for sure.

The proof is in the 'details'.


Jerry

ummmm, that's another way of saying it..


Jerry

The "divide and conquer" part was initiated by an over-zealous dad and whomever the video owner happens to be. That kind of stuff should probably be limited to a few close friends if it needs to be shared at all - and I don't blame them for wanting to.

I have to say though, it does change the concept of "be sure of your target...and what's beyond." Perhaps a more contemporary rule should also include "and what's in the unseen foreground." I reckon it might have been a bit disconcerting to walk up on that bull and find a couple guys skinning it after it stumbled toward them and died while they were hiking up toward the clearing where they had first seen them. ("Cool, Son, you almost had a twofer, a quadruped and a biped. Instead you got an O-fer. Too bad.") That sure could have made a lasting impression on the kid.

No, Tanner is correct...the post is goofy.

You probably don't have a misses or children either, otherwise you'd understand.

Don't overdramatize the whole situation. The Anti's don't care if the Elk was killed at 10feet. They only care it was killed. Video said the Kid practiced at that range. He missed once, who hasn't?

Want to place guilt? Sad and disturbing? Then it falls on various rifle and optics companies who promote what you can do with their products, bullet manufactures who make the long, lean, high BC bullets along with others in the hunting community who promote this sort of shooting. They are supposed to be on our side.

Limit your rifle hunting to a .30-30 and then you will no longer share in guilt by association.

For myself, I have absolutely no association guilt and if questioned by someone who has an open mind with regards that Elk can easily explain why.

If I ever am in need of drama, I only have to come here....

So, Berger is unethical? That's almost like saying gun manufacturers are responsible for shooting deaths.....

Totally Agree..

like the ad IN this page....(at the time of posting)

I am SO sick of seeing the SAME elk....falling down in the SAME scene....NEARLY every time of reading.

YMMV.....I'm stickin tuit!

Jerry

Didn't use or imply unethical, so lets not overdramatize.

Was referring to Kingston who used the words sad, distrubing and guilt by association applied to all of us. He is the one who should be blaming Berger, etc and not you and I with regard quilt by association.

Not my way to enjoy a hunt, but it is only unethical if one is hunting illegally or beyond their capability to use the equipment they have.

Smokey -

I'm not saying Berger is "unethical", however it's not only Berger but the others mentioned....

the ADV for the public 'encourages' anyone who sees them to at least ATTEMPT long range shooting, AND they think if anyone else can do it so can they.

The priority IMO should be on THOROUGH practice at long range on INanimate targets.

HOW many 12-14 yr olds have put in ANYWHERE near enuff time practicing BEFORE attempting to shoot AT a living BG animal?

These are MY thots--NO ONE else has to agree.


Jerry

Agree, and I care less how far away it was shot. Eventually it gets tired and old. How many times do you need to see an animal die? I ignore it.

First, I don't think Kingston was blaming you and I for anything, he's just saying that the general non-hunting public associates all of us with the questionable actions of a few. That's "guilt by association."

Second, I think your admonishment "let's not over-dramatize" is ironic coming from someone who just said bullet manufacturers are to blame for what some people do with their bullets.

Yes. I know. Battue brought up bullet manufacturers, and to be fair, he didn't say they were unethical but he did say they should be blamed for what some people do with their bullets.

I can't agree with that line of thinking.

I do agree that anti's don't make distinctions and want to end all hunting so I don't worry about them. But I do concern myself with what the general non-hunting public thinks because they are the voters.

I have a missus and three daughters and a next week a second grandkid and I don't understand.

I think Tanner was basically right although "goofy" isn't the word I would have used. (And not sure what the right word or phrase would be. Maybe "ego-centric"?)

Arrogant.

Actually you arse, I am married and I do have a family, furthermore I did this for fifteen years Professionally as my sole source of income and shot rabbits for the better part of three years before that to pay the bills.

So I [bleep] well do have a very good understanding about making ends meet from shooting.

But it is really nice of an amateurish loudmouth prick like you to judge.

JS, you obviously aren't very good at recognizing sarcasm. Go back to the original goofy post Tanner commented on and see what the first response to it was.

Someone brought up "disdain" in a post several pages back. I have disdain for the posts, not the posters who bad mouth folks who shoot at game a long way off. (The posters would probably be great around a real campfire.) If they don't like it don't open a long range hunting thread.

I am convinced most statistics are made up at the time of use. With that said, I am convinced 95% of hunters would never see an elk at even 700 yards in that setting. Also, I am convinced 75% of them would not have equipment to make the shot if they did see it. And of those who do have the equipment 90% of them sighted in their scope for 100 yards or 200 yards and don't have any idea how many minutes of angle to dial in to make a killing shot. How many of us have heard someone say something like, "My .300 magnum goes out about 200 yards before it goes up before it starts on its downward arc,"?

If they did see it at 700 yards and were going to shoot at it, they would think it was a mile and aim fifty feet over it.

For the sake of clarity:

I am NOT saying Berger should NOT advertise!

I suggest CHANGING to summin different!


Jerry

Well, speaking for myself, I'm not badmouthing anybody just because they shot at game a long way off. I guess I'm one of those who still thinks how it's done is important. And when I say "how it's done" I'm not talking about preferred hunting styles or a personal ethic on "how it should be done."

I'm talking about shot selection and taking a reasonable amount of care to place your shot on an animal as valuable as an elk.

Quaint, huh?

First, I've had it with the anti's and just about had it trying to polish my apple for the non-hunting public. Those non-hunters who know me by and large accept that I hunt. Will that change how they vote? Maybe, maybe not. You do your part, I'll do mine and perhaps we will win the race. Again maybe, maybe not.

I didn't say-and you may want to say I did, but I didn't-bullet manufacturers are to blame. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but meant to say Kingston perhaps should include them in his guilt by association thoughts.


Addition: Looking back, I already clarified it once previously.

If you didn't mean to say that, my apologies.

Hey, on this end it's nothing that requires an apology. Just messing around for the most part. You keep me on my toes when we go back and forth.

And you will probably appreciate this, since I know you are concerned about my continued existence riding a snowboard.

Yesterday was a beeeeg improvement and the young Shawn White wannabe who is coaching me-Kid is really cool-says "You're ready. Next time up we are going to the top." Now you have something to be concerned about.

I know. And just so you know, I didn't mean it.

X2^^^^

Smokepole's reading is exactly what I meant when using the phrase "guilt by association". Guilt by association, while illogical, is a pitfall humans too often fail to avoid.

How do you cook all them Kangaroos? WOW!

Great, now I fell better.

I stand by my contention that stunts, like the one documented in the video, are likely to draw criticism from the non-hunting public. The majority of posters in this thread have expressed concern about shooting at game animals from a 1/3 of a mile. The posts in this speak for themselves.

I grew up on a farm in North West Pennsylvania. From age 10, I hunted day in and day out. I knew every inch of our farm. I hunted woodchucks, deer, doves, ducks, geese, pheasants, grouse, squirrels, and rabbits. Back then, and this wasn't eons ago, a kid could go out with a rifle or shotgun and hunt on their own. I loved being outside and still do. After graduate school, I met my wife in Boston and ended up settling among the conservative swamp yankees and cranberry growers of South Eastern Massachusetts. They are a small minority. During the first 10 years I lived here, there were times I literally felt like and alien or like I was in another country. Gun regulations are nonsensical, incoherent, conflicting and anything but commonsense. Hunters, even hunters who were born and bred here, are viewed with skepticism and too often disdain. What's scariest, is guys 10 years my senior, who were raised in MA, describe growing up hunting like I did. They tell of having lots of places to hunt, of duck hunting the marshes before school, and roaming the woods in search of small game after school.

Identifying Massachusetts as extreme in it's views on hunting, guns, and the management of wild lands is not novel. My fear is that what happened in Massachusetts will happen to the rest of the country. The people who want that future will appeal to the public citing videos like the one we've been discussing. My refusal to ignore them is not dramatic.

JSTUART,

My everyday work boots are steel toed slip-on boots that I order direct from Australia. I wear Rossi now, but wore steel toed Blundstone boots before that (they dropped the model I wore). At one time I thought they were made from Kangaroo hide, I'm not sure if they still are. Either way, I suppose your the guy I should thank for rounding up the kangaroos.

Ain't this what got Tom Horn hung? He got paraphrased " if I did shoot that kid....it was the best shot I ever took....and the dirtiest trick I ever pulled."

I have been reading this with too much dismay not to comment.

A different take: That was frankly a disgraceful and unethical use of a young kid. Dad pushes the kid into a performance in front of an adult entourage and a video camera that is shoved into his face. Many parts of that video were obviously reenactment. Are you really going to have the cameraman in front of a kid setting up a loaded rifle for a long-range shot? I hope not. But look at the performance, yeah, the kid is carrying the rifle on his pack, but Dad takes the rifle, sets it up, dials in the distance, works the bolt a-la-Palin, and pontificates through the whole performance. (I intentionally watched it without sound – actions alone speak loudly.) The kid reenacts working the bolt and pushing off the safety – no way someone was shooting video that close to his face and in his way when he was actually shooting (really?).

Did that kid look comfortable behind the stock? Not really. They must have cut it down, but he was still struggling to get things to fit, see out of the huge scope that dwarfed him, and get into a good shooting position. Was it ethical to have a kid who was that uncomfortable with his rifle and shooting position attempting a long-range shot like that? Not. Why does anyone think he had a clean miss the first shot? Poor rifle fit, poor shooting position, maybe can’t see well out of the scope because he is so far back from it, then you add stress from the performance pressure and adrenaline from the buildup to the shot! Maybe he is actually capable of long shots from the bench on a rest. Should his Dad have been translating that to him lobbing extreme shots at a bull elk, shooting from a field position?

The question has nothing to do with the kid’s decisions and behavior, and everything to do with the group of adults pushing and enabling this stunt show. What is the kid learning from the hype, decision making, and expectations placed upon him? It is a nice bull, but does the kid know enough yet to really appreciate that? To appreciate the animal he got, what it is, how it lived, what a gift it is?

On shooting game at ultra long ranges where there is time for many things to change and go wrong with a shot, aside from the merry little breezes between shooter and target, or the animal moving, I am in the camp of many other opinions already stated. For an inanimate target, go for it. For a living, breathing animal that feels pain and may suffer a lingering death from a bad shot that is not immediately and successfully followed up, I just can’t agree. From that distance you can’t get there quickly and do what you should to finish it. If you are going to hunt, hunt. Get close enough for a fail-safe shot (yeah, I know sometimes fail-safe shots can have problems, but less so at 100 yards or under than at over 1,000 yards), be prepared for a follow-up, if you lose sight of your animal, stay with it until you get it or you really do completely lose all sign. Put your all into it. Go look the next day if you need to. Hunt responsibly. Those really long range shots fall into a different category than truly hunting, they are shooting, sniping, call it what you will, at least to my ken. But then, for me, the thrill comes from getting as close as I can for a shot, then making a quickly deadly shot.

OK, you gave me a history lesson. One that mirrors the hunting times of some of us. However, you failed to give the entire story. Let me help.

Agree with it or not, you are looking at a change in how some want to hunt and that change has taken roots. I remember when bow hunting started to come on. First it was a few with Fred Bear recurves and very few they were. I know they hunted close range but that isn't the point. Why wounded Deer would be roaming the woods. Then compound bows came around and it was those bow hunters are taking advantage. Why any can draw one of them. Now we are at crossbows with scopes. An entire cottage industry grew up around the bow hunting craze.

Then I remember when the AR rifles sneaked in. They will never take hold right? They have no resemblence to the traditions you and I grew up with. Well, wrong again, and soon additional cottages popped up. Like them or not, they are here.

Now the LR craze has hit, and again like it or not, it is here to stay for the cottages are being built.

Lets throw ML's into the pot also. Started out with BP, open sights and flint or percussion caps. Where are we today? Smokeless powders, shotgun primer ignition and scopes with the ability to shoot at ranges unthought of when the ML craze hit.

Now who supplies the materials-money-to build these cottages? It certainly isn't the anti's, the non-committed hunting crowd or anyone else who doesn't hunt and votes. No sense in dragging it out any further in that is the rifle makers, ammo suppliers, optics makers. In effect it is us. They all want a piece of the pie, so if you have a biitch who should you be taking it to? This forum? Hell most agree with you; you are preaching to the choir. However, since it makes you feel good have at it. But don't fool yourself into thinking you are going to bring about any change. You want to save an Elk, then donate some cash to enroll an up and coming hunter who is into the LR game into a LR school. It will be time and money better spent and will probably save more than one in the long run.

Drugs and Mexico. If we were not snorting it, then it wouldn't be a problem.

Hardly.

Shouldn't you be snow boarding?

Well, OK, maybe I have messed a few comments and someone has already said part of what I said. Perhaps I elaborated more. Either way, LR is a trend I don't particularly care for, but the specific venue it was presented in at the start of this thread was especially distressful to contemplate. On so many levels.

Weak, but today I did buy my first snowboard rather then renting each time, so guess I was in a round about kind of way. Thanks for asking.

I wish my kid could shoot like that, wouldn"t you?

Given a choice I would rather Her be a great hunter vs a great shooter. Now since she didn't take to hunting, I spend our time together in other ways. Thus part of my new interest in snowboarding.

Anyway, I don't find much of a rush in the extreme LR game, but it is here and some believe in the the old Roman way of disagreeing with the message.

Missed the entire animal on the first shot.

Should be all that needs saying.

The kid with his gear and crew would outshoot me every day of the week all year long, but I like to hunt more than I like to take pokes at game.

Lotta guys will justify this. Lots of them can shoot too. Dont make it right. Hunting isnt sniping.

Also dont really care that much. If it werent a slow night I wouldnt have posted.

Yep.

Then again, I would it even more if he were a hunter.

What is definition of hunter?

Why not have your kids know how to hunt and shoot well. Mine are good at both. Doesn't have to be one or the other. Put them both together and they are lethal.

If you need a lesson on why this is more shooting than hunting, then you wont get it.

Not calling for anything to be banned or outlawed, but the shooter and crew get no atta boy IMo.

For all I care, they could keep at it, I could give a [bleep] what some other guy is doing.

But if you cant get closer than 1400 yards, maybe you need to work on the craft a little. And if you didnt try, then you are shooting more than hunting.

While it may not be legal anywhere, I venture that a careful 22 long rifle poke at 50 yards is a more ethical deal than is the shot(s) in question.

Maybe you could show us where it is written the idea of closer is hunting while farther is not. Perhaps we could find some bow hunters who would tell us using a firearm is a stunt and not showing the proper respect for the game.

Not to be critical - unless I'm very mistaken, that has already been discussed w/in this context.

Jerry

Someone who hunts like I do.

I'm more interested in hearing how close I need to be before I'm actually hunting.

Do I have to have different rifles to do these two things? Or can I still use the same gun, it just totally changes at X yards?

Ringman,

Actually, that very concept was discussed long before laser rangefinders appeared. You may or may not have heard of a little book entitled MEDITATIONS ON HUNTING written by a Spanish hunter and philosopher named Jose Ortega y Gasset in the 1930's. It's most famous for this comment: "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

But Ortega y Gasset also wrestles with technology, partly because he acknowledged that by the 20th century hunting wasn't essential to physical existence of most humans. Instead it had become a more ritualized activity, even though many of us also value and eat game meat.

Here's another short quote from the section on modern hunting technology, which obviously wasn't as advanced in the 1930's as the 21st century. One of Ortega y Gasset's main points is that once we bypass an animal's natural survival instincts with our technology, then we're not hunting but just killing: “The confrontation between man and animal has a precise boundary beyond which hunting ceases to be hunting, just at the point where man lets loose his immense technical superiority—that is, rational superiority—over the animal.”

Some hunters would counter that any technology more complex than bonking an animal over the head with a rock bypasses the animal's survival instincts, so in order to be ethical we should be restricted to hunting with hand-held rocks, because even a club is "rational superiority."

But that's not the point, precisely because non-survival hunting is more of a ritual with nature than a basic physical need. Ortega y Gasset is saying that while we don't need to kill an elk in order to keep from starving, we still need to interact with an elk's survival instincts in order to be hunters rather than mere killers.

The question of what's ethical (and not just in hunting) has been debated by humans for thousands of years, and goes far beyond the typical Campfire debates, which tend not to be debates but pronouncements, such as:

"My hunting method is legal, so it's ethical."
"What does what some dead Spaniard wrote have to do with today?"
"Is too."
"Is not."

Probably the most practical observation in this entire thread is we need to teach kids to shoot well so they can kill cleanly. However, I'd sure want any of my kids to be capable of hitting a bull elk more than 50% of the time.

It would have been impressive if he'd shot it at 50 yards with a borrowed 30-06 and Corlokts.

And by himself...


There's long range shooting and there's hunting. No such thing as long range hunting in my book because I don't see it as fair chase.


But hey, some guys think jacking off is the same as getting laid....

I have organised to wander out with a mate and stick some pigs with knives...should I be worried about what you lot think of my ethics?

What you stick in a hog is between you and the hog, but if you bring a mate along he could help hold it.

Nah...you have me confused with the Kiwis, that is why they wear gumboots.

Well, that and they have trouble tying shoelaces.


And their footy teams suck.

I agree with this concept, but the problem I have is with figuring out where that boundary is. I don't believe it's as precise as Ortega y Gasset would have us believe.

And if we're talking about defeating the animal's natural survival instincts by taking shots from long distances I believe that boundary is closer to 200 yards than 1,000. Nobody talks about the huge difference in an animal's ability to detect a hunter at 300 yards vs. 50 because most guys can make a 300 yards shot. Or think they can.

Humans have always used technology to defeat prey animals' survival instincts, it's what we do. Both in hunting, and in raising domesticated animals for food.

To impress you it would have to be a borrowed rifle, in .30-06 and using coreloks. Any specific grain of bullet to narrow it down for a fair chase win?

Fair chase, just what is it? Couple 1000 words to help you make some decisions.




This stand has been there for perhaps 20years and at least over 50-60 Deer have been shot out of it. I've killed probably 15 or so. Bucks and Does. It is 220 to the top right of the crest and it tapers down to 150 to the right. Out the back left side it goes to 260. It is an evening hot spot and Deer have been shot from almost point blank out to the edges. Fair chase to sit in there on a cold December night and shoot a Deer? Heck they hardly pay any attention to it any more. Some would be fairly safe with irons, not so much with a scope.

One nice Buck I shot running across the field at around 50 yards. Hit him two out of three. Was it more fair chase with him running vs just walking out and standing there?

300 or so yard behind it is this one. It's falling in and you have to prop it up and rearrange things to find a place to stick the barrel out. Few have been shot out of here also. Came up on it one time before season and this fellow came walking up at around 60 yards away. In season would it have been fair chase to shoot him close to another stand that has been there 20 years or so? Who knows how many times he walked by it without a care.









This small Buck was still inside the wood in front of the first stand and I was on the edge. Would it have been more of a fair chase since I wasn't in the stand? He would have been just as dead if I was going to shoot him.




So, where does fair chase begin.

50%? I'll never take any shot I think is only 50%. Just me.

Doesn't mean I don't miss. But it does mean at the time I pull the trigger, I"m 200% confidence of a quick clean kill. At whatever yardage I decide to pull the trigger at.

Let me just ad, as I generally always do, what the heck... I got a big paddle today... grins..

if you are going to have to define hunting vs shooting, I'll say that FWIW shooting takes a LOT more skill than hunting ever will.

I gotta get back to the safe, after reading this morning I am trying to seperate my rifles into either shooting rifles or hunting rifles.

(fairly safe to say I've killed stuff as close as almost anyone, and about as far off as few have. I've not messed up a single long one... I can't say the same about the short ones.)

Caught this one up over the crest of the first stand. Would it have been more fair chase to have shot him from the stand or with me leaning up against a tree back off in the wood edge.

Precise may not be precisely the right word--and the book is translated from Spanish, so may not be precisely what Ortega y Gasset meant. It would depend on the animal and terrain, as well as the range.

Yes, humans have always used technology to defeat animal's survival, which I thought was obviously a part of my post, where I mentioned using a club instead of a rock. If we wanted to get even more picky, we'd use a hand-held rock as an example of technology, instead of choking or biting an animal to death.

But that's not the point. If humans have to kill and eat animals to survive, we've always found ways to do it, ranging from digging pits, making snares, driving them over cliffs or into lakes, or whatever else works.

However, Ortega y Gasset's essay isn't about subsistence hunting. Instead it's about is generally called "sport" or "recreational" hunting, even though we often eat the meat and it may even help us get by economically. If I had to get some meat to avoid starving to death, then I'd use whatever means possible. But that's not what we're discussing, so claiming using technology is OK, because humans have always used technology for obtaining meat, is irrelevant.

Of course we've always used technology, since the use of technology is one of the definitions of being human. Instead we're talking about the essence of modern hunting, which is not basic survival.

Mule Deer, great post!!!!!

It's not irrelevant when people want to say long-range hunting is "not hunting." Because people who say that are basically saying "it's OK to use technology as far as I go with it, but not as far as you want to take it." Which is in a word, hypocritical.

A guy making a 300-yard shot with a modern scoped centerfire rifle is using basically the same technology as a guy making a 700-yard shot. The guy making the 700 yard shot is just better at it.

And what you're saying above about "sport" or recreational hunting all goes back to why an individual hunts, and what that individual wants to get out of the hunt. Some want the contest with the animal, and want to defeat its senses the hard way by sneaking in close. Others just want meat for the freezer and don't really care about the challenge or defeating the animal's senses. Neither reason for hunting is "better" or more valid than the other.

smokepole,

Since Mule Deer's post is declared "Great" I will declare this one "Stupendous and Magnanimous!"

E


"in my book"

Read the entire post and save yourself some typing.

I always liked this one from Jose. Looks like you are not much into effort.


“Effort is only effort when it begins to hurt.”
― José Ortega y Gasset

To the group:

For the recreational hunter. Does fair chase only exist when the animal has the opportunity to escape capture or death? If so then Stuarts Pig adventures are the only example of fair chase that has been presented so far. In that many here only shoot when the outcome is a given.

Thanks but my money's on Mule Deer.

If so then it was unintentional as I could not give a fig for "fair chase", I set out with the intention of killing them with the minimum of fuss and effort, and hunt on foot only because I enjoy doing so.

I shall leave the ethical dilemma to those with a pretentious bent.

As with most things involving hunting I think a lot has to do with mindset.

Used to be that most of the serious hunters I knew looked upon the long range poke as a weapon(tactic) held in reserve for the most extreme set of circumstances they might encounter,and in their view only to be used when the proverbial wheels had fallen off...a wounded animal and preventing escape, a calculated long range shot at a trophy animal they had waited a long time and invested deeply, in time and/or money, and effort to obtain.

Not that these people were necessarily unskilled, because many were match/competition shooters with years under their belt. But they knew all about the critical nature of drift and drop and how easily these things could move a bullet off track, so they were very cautious about chancing it.

That approach seems to have changed today,due largely to the better technology. But the goblins of physics still exist despite the technology. We have better gear to deal with it,and many are better at doping things, but the video demonstrates that we are still a long ways from humans perfecting judgement calls under field conditions...even the best of them.

I'll wager the boys low shot at 1300 yards would have been a solid boiler room hit at 300 yards because the values of drift and drop were about 4 times less,(i have not done the precise math, who cares?). There is a bit more wiggle room for error in the 300 yard poke than the 1300 yard one.

That, to me, is where the ethics come into play...the difference between the 90% lead pipe cinch, and the 50-50% call that could as easily result in a wounding circus as a clean miss. That's where the shoot/don't shoot ethic comes into play for me. I'm never going to say don't do it,but think a guy should really deal with better odds than 50-50,which is actually a really terrible field shooting average on BG animals.

In regard fair chase:

Thank you, I was hoping someone would voice the same and most are of the same thought when opportunity presents. It is uncomfortable and politically incorrect for them to say otherwise. So they use PC wording such as fair chase and clean kill.

However, didn't really expect to see it at all let alone so quickly. Glad to see there are still some that acknowledge the beast that lives inside them. Controlling it is for another discussion.

Addition: On second thought controlling it, is probably the main theme of this thread.

I can't answer that but I didn't see any hunting in the video.

I agree 100%.

Of course not. It was only a few minutes long. You didn't see the hours of time hiking over hill and dale HUNTING before they got ready for the shot.

You could have 1, 2 or a hundred rifles. I couldnt care less what you or anyone else does.

You want to call this hunting? A kids dad setting him up behind a gun, dialing up everything including the video crew & video cameras, and then shooting and missing a deer 1400 yards away, a kid who frankly looked about as excited as one who just got a C+ on his homework? OK. I was taught differently and hunt differently. YMMV

I hesitate to say this but if that truly was the kid's first elk, as a parent there's no way I'd let my son or daughter take that shot, much less put him/her up to it. Too much can go wrong and I'd hate to saddle my kid with the memory of a bad hit and a lost elk on his first one just because he was following my lead. If he's going to make a mistake and lose an elk I'd want that to be his decision, not mine.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to believe there was any hunting going on. For myself, I doubt it. I suspect they knew the area and either knew aforehand or were pretty sure the elk would be there. I can take you to areas where there are almost always elk and an opportunity for a long shot like that would pretty much be a daily occurrence during Colorado's rifle seasons. Drive up followed by a five minute walk, if that. No indication in the video that this place was any different.

IMO it was a set-up from the get-go and the kid and elk were little or nothing more than props for the video.

Agreed. In 2014 I lost my first elk in 32 years of hunting them. I still get angry at myself and a sick feeling in my stomach every time I think about it.

Coyote_Hunter,



Tell us the difference in your elk that got away and what you are complaining about.

And discussing it all not around a campfire but on computers linked to the internet, I think that is unethical.

BTW I don't think thats anyway to take your first animal either. It would not be with kids if we had any.

But I can sure see the time and place, especially for some of the youth competitors out there that are national champs and the like... the ability to make the shot at times and in places, is there.... Just have to know when and when not to.

Discussing anything on the Internet is obviously unethical, because Al Gore invented it.

First, I'm not "complaining", merely commenting. What other people do is up to them but what these people in the video did wasn't something I would do and no. I don't give them any kudos for their "hunting" skills as I didn't see anything I would remotely consider "hunting" in the video.

The elk I lost was the first and only one I've lost since I started elk hunting in 1982 and would have been the 14th for me since 2000 (15 years). Not at all sure just how many more I took between 1982 through 1999, or how many I passed on during those years because the shot opportunity didn't measure up to what I was comfortable with.

A second difference is I hit the elk with the first and only shot. In spite of the most massive blood trail I have ever seen, it escaped to private land where we couldn't follow. The dark blood and chest-high blood on the brush on both sides of its trail suggested a liver hit with a pass-through.

Another is that the range was 389 yards, not 1376 yards. I practice pretty regularly out to 600 yards and when the wind cooperates I am able to hit clay pigeons at that range on a pretty regular basis - something I proved two weekends ago to hit 8 clay pigeons at 600 with about 30 tries. While that is only about a 27% success rate all but a couple would have hit an 8" plate and I believe all would have been in the kill zone for an animal the size of an elk. I underestimated a crosswind, which we couldn't see or feel from our position, and that lead to my shot hitting the elk a bit further back than I intended, assuming it was indeed a liver hit. Add 1,000 yards and there is a lot more room for things to go wrong, as the kid's first shot miss proved.

Finally, I actually "hunted" to obtain the shot opportunity, something you suggest the people in the video did but without any evidence to back up your claim.

Convince me that the video wasn't just a promotional video with the kid and the elk being props.

Coyote_Hunter,



You and I are just the same. You are speculating they didn't hunt to get the video shot and I speculated they hunted to find the elk.

Recreational hunting, hunting for sport, as concept is what we've been discussing. The notion of sport implies rules, standards, and boundaries. Many have asked if the technologies, which have made successful ultra long range shooting accessible to the masses–– when used in the pursuit of game, conform to conventional notions and accepted norms delineating the scope of "good" sportsmanship. Battue references "fair chase", a long standing ideal frequently integral to many descriptions of acceptable sportsmanship.

Society evinces its notions of sportsmanship in the broadest sense through laws regulating hunting. While these laws are unavoidably influenced by widely shared ethical norms, they are not society's proclamation of an rigid ethical doctrine. We as individuals, are free, within the broad bounds established by law, to individually determine the scope and nature of sportsmanship in our personal pursuits of game. Every interaction potentially involves a novel set of choices. Choices about fairness and responsibility to the game animal.

Our choosing is not arbitrary. The sporting pursuits have a tradition of thoughtful and self reflective consideration. We're taught notions like "fair chase", honor, duty, and responsibility. Sport hunting is a luxury, not a necessity, that demands its participants individually develop and apply these notions. This is our heritage.

Just to throw it out for consideration. The Dad's face looks familiar and I'm sure I've seen him on some LR hunting show. Perhaps he owns the rifle company being used? Which if this is the case I doubt if the Kid hasn't had a pretty good foundation in LR shooting. At the end they even commented on the fact they have steel that goes past a 1000.

Hunting or shooting, it is up to the individual to decide, but I doubt if many of us here could hang with that Boy when it comes to shooting.

I made a post on another thread that shooting critters haplessly at long range was bad karma.. Ringman asked this...



this time I'll answer and cut to the chase -

Would it be OK for a God, or "God" to be careless with ending a life and causing crippling, or long suffering death ?

When you shoot an elk at a range it never, ever could be capable of defending itself via sensing you (and they've seen me at 100's of yards, but not at 1000 plus)... Then you are playing God and being careless...

If you play the "not careless card" - well your a liar.

I think my quote was - you'd better hope God isn't as careless as you are... The inferred principle is the gold end rule... God to no a God... Humans have dominion over critters, and our quality as gardians of them is shown by how careless we are with them, especially when harvesting one.

Tech makes people flinpet about responsibility... The Internet is a good example.

So go forth and multiply - .. Either responsibility, or otherwise.

Cheers
Spot

His Daddio and Uncle are the owners of Gunwerks.... Rifles, scopes, ammo, classes, undies, etc.... Just for conversation....

Tanner

Spotshooter,



You are using limited human intelligence to ask about an Infinite Being. I don't approve of all God does. What that shows is I don't understand. God brought about a world wide flood. If you look in the fossil record you see millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rock. Many of them have broken bones and many display evidence of extreme suffering. God does not need my input and I am certainly not qualified to judge His actions.

When I go hunting I use binoculars. I am always delighted when I find game before it knows I'm there. Many times the animal knows I'm there and goes on alert. Sometimes they wait to see what's up and sometimes they immediately run. My longest kill on game is a measured 400 yards. My longest on a varmint is 527 yards. I don't condemn someone for killing an elk with a spear; the way some here did awhile back. I don't condemn someone for killing an elk at 3/4 of a mile with a rifle.

I do my thing; which includes posting on the net.



I have no idea what you are saying in this sentence.

Great post Bob!

The same? Not hardly.

You stated pretty flatly that “You didn't see the hours of time hiking over hill and dale HUNTING before they got ready for the shot.” There is no evidence in the video that that is how it happened. To the contrary, the fact that the father talked about a gong at the odd range of 1360 yards makes me very suspicious that this was a pre-planned shooting, long in the making.

Nowhere, however, will you find where I claim it didn’t happen – I merely have strong doubts. In any case, I stand by my statement that I didn’t see any hunting in the video.

Undies? They got Realtree Scentblockers in stock?

I just bought the last 7 pair...

Coyote_Hunter,



Again we are in agreement. Again we are the same.

John, just ruined my keyboard this morning. LOL

FWIW wind is always visible in one way or anohter.

Likely why I have not made many longer shots, because I take the time to read it all the way out and back in and check side draws etc....

If you continue practicing at 600, which is a good thing even if you don't shoot at game at that distance, start figuring out WHY you are missing clay targets. There is always a cause. If its not you or the gun/ammo, then you are not seeing everything you need to.

Remember mirage and wind are 2 seperate issues. One shows there is wind and lets you guess speed, but it also optically moves the aiming/impact point. Wind moves the bullet.

There is a LOT more to learn over years of time, to shooting well especially at longer distances, than there is to figuring out how to get closer and make a chip shot.

rost495,

This is one of the most polite and informative helps I have read on the net. Thanks.

Reason I have not made a lot of long shots... is because by the time I dope everything and add it to the formula, often game is not shootable anymore...

I had one work out once almost... doped it all, was still not convinced my wind correction was correct, something over 950 and approaching 1000.. I forget...

Pulled off the side of animal about 150 yards to what we thought was a large rock, shot and flipped it in the air barely skimming it... dropped a round in and the animal decided to slowly walk off.. nope not shooting.

Went down to check the rock out, it was softball sized... LOL.

Rost -

Your last 2 posts are the kind I enjoy reading. I also appreciate your determination to do it right.

I had almost the reverse situation several yrs ago. I had been watching & scoping a round grey spot and decided it was a stump. A while later I heard a little noise and looked, the STUMP walked out of sight.

In another area I watched a rather large spot that looked just like the side of a deer laying down. It definitely was NOT another person/animal.
After 20-30 min. I remembered the stump walking off so.....

I aimed for the crease between the shoulder and ribs..BANG. ! Nothing.

I walked across a ravine and SPOT on I nailed a ROCK exactly where I aimed. DEAD rock.

Jerry

Plus one! Great stuff Jeff!

Sooner or later state game departments will make extreme long range illegal.
IMHO

Wanna impress me? Stalk it to 100 yards or less. That is hunting not shooting. You want to LR shoot/ Make steel elk targets and have at it.

Fixed it for you. It is nice to see the ethics police finally show up though.

As far as state F&G agencies, I believe if they were going to do something they'd have done it by now. Almost impossible to enforce in the field.

+1 Too many wounded animals dieing slow deaths and becoming coyote food.

I can't help but wonder how long it took them to get to the elk after the shot.

For me, on foot, the time would have been measured in hours, during which the bacteria count would be doubling every 15 minutes. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my meat fresher than that.

Not really. They enforce all kinds of goofy restrictions on muzzle loaders in western states. They could just say no scopes.


Now whether or not there is the political will is another question.

Seriously? If they did that, bubba couldn't take his 200-300 yard pokes.

Never happen.

The problem is worse during archery season, and to go back to Fotis' post, the answer is no, I have no desire to impress you.

Do we really need to legislate every detail? The onus is on the hunter to do the right thing. The guys in this video failed to do the right thing. This is both my contention and seems to be the consensus here. Their actions were reckless and irresponsible.

kingston,



I wonder if we can get a consensus on the correct elk cartridge and brand of rifle and scope and bullet? That way the antis won't have anything to complain about.

Na, no scopes over 4x-have to consider us old guys, so only those under 40 have to use irons-no range finding reticles, no scope adjustments in that you have to sight-in in the presence of a WCO at which time he/she places a seal on your adjustments which will transmit a text to their phone if broken. Do so and a helicopter will be immediately dispatched to your longitude-latitude. Fine will be loss of license forevaaaa. That should do it.

Or they could make you hunt in the presence of an Anti, whose responsibility is to range find every opportunity. No shooting until you are passed off to do so. Now that would really do it.

Addition: Only allowed 2 cartridges in the field. Coded to your rifle of course. More than 2 and the firing mechanism shuts down.

I think Kingston is right on regarding more regulations. I can't believe we're talking about banning scopes because a few people exercise poor judgment with their shot selection.

And Battue, don't leave out the bowhunters, we need someone looking over their shoulders too. We should probably make ' em wear blaze orange so they're easier to keep track of.

ML's must be capable of safely handling one Triple 7 pellet only. Or Black Powder equivalent. Stick two or three in there and it will get ugly.

Triple 7??

The 1990's called. They want their powder back.

We have to go back to simpler times. Adjust or take up golf. Wooden shafts only. You know, back when 200 yards was a long drive.

I bet you still have the knickers from when you were a kid.

Na, but I just gave the Grandkids my sled. They thought it was sooooo cool. A wooden sled. "Really?" They asked if I still had my helmet. Told them we didn't use helmets back then. Granddaughter shook her finger at me.

Well, that would explain a lot. I bet your sledding hill had lots of big trees?

Na again. We went down hilly streets for the most part. Did get interesting at the intersections. We got a lot of finger waves then also.

With regards to enforcing a limit on long range shooting of game, I am reminded of another controversy that routinely is hashed out in my home state of Louisiana.

The limit on Speckled Trout in LA is 25/person. Every year, on local outdoors forums guides post pics of their clients successful fishing trips. These chartered trips aren't cheap, speckled trout are delicious table fare. While certainly not guaranteed, 4 man limits on 4 man Charters are not uncommon, there is usually the gratuitous pics of the grinning fishermen with their mountain of trout.

And every year when the successful guides start posting the pictures, the same chorus arrises - the limits are too high, the resources are being depleted, LA F&G needs to lower the limits. Other states limits are much lower, ours should be too! Somebody must do something before the trout populations are decimated - Just LOOK at the pictures on the forums for proof!

And every year after the chorus reaches a fever pitch some poor soul from La Dept of Wildlife is badgered into giving a response, which is the same every year: Every year they conduct extensive creel surveys, including what the guides/guided customers catch. The average number of fish per fisherman per trip? Two.

Lowering the limits would have ZERO effect because so few people are successful at catching anywhere close to the limit - despite what you see on the Internet.

I suspect this situation with long range hunting is similar - despite what you see on the Internet, so few people are capable of doing it that it has zero appreciable effect on the game populations...

David

Ethics are a personal thing. Personally, I hate seeing these youtube videos glorifying these stunts. I will also say this: If a less-than-ideal shot on game offends you, take a look at how commercial game is treated and harvested.

Glorifying is what you see. I do not see that. I see guys sharing fun.

This video is garbage. As a hunter It's a disgrace to be associated with such behavior. That elk deserved better.

Fair chase should be central to our hunting ethics. If we compromise the ethics of our sport and it descends into nothing more than a chase for horns and self glorification on the internet at any cost, we erode the noble heritage that our sport is built on. To paraphrase Yvon Chouinard: The whole purpose of doing something difficult (in this case hunting a trophy elk) is to gain physical and spiritual growth, if you compromise the process you're an [bleep] when you start out and you're an [bleep] when you get back.

Lol, I can just see it.

wildcat33,

If you give me your address I will send you a soap box.

Wildcat33, never mind Ringman. He's only got one soapbox and he's always on it.

Hit steel plenty at 1000. Don't think I'd take it on live game. To many variables. Quite sure that my 180 Berger's @2860 would do the deed from my 7mm REM Mag. Most of my tags have been archery and those distances don't come into play. Wyoming archery tag this year.

Gotta love Kids. 😄

I would hope she would not find any joy in that shot even if she could make it.

Nope. I disagree with Ringman on a lot of things, but getting on a soapbox is not something he does. In fact, he's pretty much the opposite when he talks hunting methods, there's not much he objects to.

Gotta read and comprehend my whole post, not just the first couple lines....

All four sentences? Don't know if I'm up to it. BTW, I wrote an article for Colorado Outdoors magazine about those goofy muzzleloader regulations. That's not a subject I'm unfamiliar with. Comparing what is considered a "primitive weapon" (and regulated as such) to modern rifles used for long-range hunting is apples and oranges.

Your post questions whether we have the "political will" to ban scopes or otherwise restrict equipment used on modern rifles. That skips right past the implication (and makes the underlying assumption) that banning scopes is "the right thing to do" and is not happening because our politicians and electorate don't have the will to do it.

So far as I know, there are zero movements afoot to ban scopes, and no pending legislation. So yes, I comprehended your post, and I can unequivocally say that its underlying premise is without basis.

Slashing the federal budget deficit is something that should be done, but we lack the political will to do. Banning scopes for hunting is just a stupid idea espoused by one guy on an internet forum; a solution in search of a problem.

Well, speaking strictly for myself, I don't need Mr. Chouinard, you, or anyone else telling me why I hunt. I'm pretty sure I can figure that out for myself. There are lots of different reasons people hunt and not all are as grandiose as "gaining physical and spiritual growth." Some hunt so they can spend time with friends and family. Some just like to get outdoors. Some want to put meat in the freezer, and some really need to put meat in the freezer. The reasons I hunt change over the course of a season, and also change depending on the animals I'm hunting.

To use your terminology, anyone who presumes to speak for all hunters on "why we hunt" has his head firmly up his [bleep].

smokepole,



At my campfire we all sit around and sign Kumbaya. Oh, wait a minute. I usually hunt alone. Well reasoned post, smokepole.

Your right, it was a poor attempt at a joke on my part.

No worries, most of my jokes fit that description.

Hunt for whatever reason you want. I'm not talking about meat hunting with friends and family or just to get outdoors. I'm saying that if you're going trophy hunting; going after horns and bragging rights, then the way you do it does matter, in my opinion. Killing from a 1000yrds? That's not a hunter, that's an [bleep]. How about learning some woodcraft and stalking skills instead. Show me a youtube video of a guy making 1000+yrd shots on elk because times are tough and he needs to feed his family and I'll send you my address and you can send me that soapbox you promised.

wildcat33,



There are probably many bow hunters here who have, like me, killed game from a distance of less than twenty steps......and have the ability to make a 1000 yards first round hit.

Now what?

Ability to do something doesn't mean that you should. Your bowhunting success shows a level of skill most only dream of. That's a game of man vs animal that goes back to the dawn of time. At any moment the wind could shift, a branch could rustle, an arrow could knock against your quiver, and the animal has a chance to win the game. The same cannot be said for the second situation.

I believe that marksmanship should be the cornerstone of a good hunter. When and how to apply that is a personal choice. If a man considers something like the B&C fair chase statement and feels that a 1000yrd shot does honor to the hunter and the hunted then so be it. I opine that it does not.

To my mind, shooting game at that distance is very I sportsman-like. It's not hunting, its target shooting regardless of age or ability. Come on, at least get within 500 yards. I'm not an archey hunter, but I have to utmost respect for those that are.

Dr_Lou,



Why not say 300 yards?

It was tongue in cheek - I forgot the proper emoji.

Ringman, I know it was simply two letters turned around and easy to figure what you meant, but the mental picture I got of you sitting around the campfire and signing Kumbaya was worth a pretty good laugh.

Wildcat, can you reconcile these two statements? If when and how a hunter applies marksmanship is simply a personal choice, then how is it that a hunter making that personal choice is an ass-hole?

That's good, we're making progress. We've gone from "hunting is for spiritual or physical growth" to acknowledging that people hunt for their own different reasons. It's a start.



What if I showed you a video of a guy making a 1,000-yard shot because making that shot is what turns his crank? Are you going to say that his reasons for hunting are not as good as your reasons, and he's an ass-hole?

I don't think I need to send you a soapbox, you've got a pretty good one of your own.

Or is that a pedestal?

Polesmoker,

The subject of banning LR guns was the question at hand. You said it couldn't be enforced. I used muzzleloaders as an example and said they could place similar restrictions on rifles.

I don't see how primitive weapons is apples to oranges. It is a tool used to take game animals that the government regulates. Pretty simple to see the similarities. I never said I was in favor of banning scopes, only that it could technically be done and would solve the issue of 1000 yard kills.

You need to relax a bit. Maybe try some of that Colorado green?

No, banning LR guns was not the subject at hand, or the subject I commented on. Why don't you go back and see for yourself. Read the posts twice if you have to. You're the one who injected the idea of banning scopes into the discussion.




Yes, that's readily apparent, so let me explain it to you. They're different weapons, and they're used in different seasons under different conditions. So not surprisingly they're regulated differently, and for different objectives. In CO and other states muzzleloaders are used in special early seasons. In CO the season falls during the elk rut, and before the general firearms season. Centerfire rifles generally can't be used during the rut. So hunters using muzzleloaders have the huge advantage of hunting during the rut, before everyone else gets a crack at the elk. Hence there is a need to limit the effective range or too many bulls would be taken by a relatively small number of hunters. There is no similar need to limit the effective range during the general season. If too many animals are taken during the general season the DOW will cut the number of tags the next year to let the numbers rebound. The two seasons have different objectives--the general season is used to manage the population, and the special early seasons are used to provide "increased recreational opportunities" meaning more hunters in the field spread out over the season. I got that information from interviews with the DOW staff who worked on the regulations.



No, you just said that scopes could be banned to limit LR hunting. Great idea, that. Come to think of it, so could rifles.

I'll bring up the point of terminal performance of a bullet from that range. No matter how accurate a shot is, there comes a distance that a bullet loses enough energy to ethically perform. So beyond the whole accuracy thing, there's the compounded effect of, or rather lack of effect, of the bullet. Never mind the trouble of combining a high BC design and one designed for terminal performance on game.

Even a 338 Lapua like cartridge will essentially be like a 357 magnum around 1000 yards. Just fine if we can place our shot right in the boiler room, but that boiler room of even a large elk shrinks down to about 1 moa from this ultra long range. I know people can shoot those kind of groups, but that happens after adjusting for things only known after test shots! Long range accuracy, at best, is a process. The best sniper with the best training still needs actual real time dope to make a reliable shot at that kind of range. If someone says they can set up, spot the wind, adjust the dope perfectly before the first shot, and hit from a cold bore within 1 MOA of a 1000 yard target with better than 30% odds, I call BS. And until someone can, a gut shot elk with a 357 mag is just as likely as one dropped right there.

Does anyone think a gut shot elk with a 357, without reliable means of immediately tracking it (because you're probably over an hour away), is ethical?

The only way I could see an ethical shot over 1000 yards is with a very powerful cartridge and true adjustments made by a series of shots on a dummy target, before the shot on the game is attempted. This is what the folks in the video did, but after attempting a shot on the elk.

Not that I'm promoting shooting elk at 1376 yards, but your calcs of comparing a .338LM to a .357 magnum pistol are slightly off. My .338LM pushes a 300gr bullet at 2840 fps. It still has 2000 foot pounds of energy at 1000 yards.......

Me either. Or 1000 yards for that matter. I'm not promoting anything other than a little tolerance for a hunting method that doesn't fit with a lot of people's personal preferences and biases, including mine. Just pointing out the flaws in some of the logic used to denigrate long-range hunting in general.

That 338 Lapua can kill Charlie at better then 1 mile and Charlie is a smaller target then an Elk.

I think if you think that you need to track a gut shot animal right away, you ain't doing it correctly....

He's not very good at building fires, so that's how he stays warm.

Fair points, I'm just stating that there does exist limitations to long range performance that are beyond the shooter's control. And I fully understand the sport of long range hunting. But at some point, the pursuit of things that deserve our respect can become irresponsible. As an extreme example, a small minority of people may think dog fighting is sporting. I think we all have a sense to avoid significant risks of losing a wounded animal.

So, what is the prognosis...have we decided who is allowed to hunt yet?

Good question, there's two parts to this right? Can you and should you. The "should you" is at question here. I have stated that I think taking the 1376yrd shot doesn't respect the animal or the sport, even if it does turn your crank or sell a product(hence earning the derogatory adjective).

For the guys that say I'm preaching or whatever fine, lets hear why long range killing of a trophy elk is the right thing to do? From their perceptive how does that honor the hunter and the hunted? Is that fair chase? Is hunting more about doing whatever you want regardless of the consequences as long your enjoying yourself, spending time with family, being outdoors, etc?

JSTUART,
Outcome of discussion unknown, so keep your head down if you hear gunfire in the woods.

Jesus man I am married, keeping my head down is ingrained habit!

Because its legal.

Who said anyone had to honor anything. I've shot a LOT of animals without having honor or thrill of the hunt etc... involved. It was harvesting meat. Hunting if you will. Shooting if you won't.

Not that I"d do what was done personally unless I'd taken a zero shot, unless I TOTALLY was understanding the conditions... and there are some days like that.

Having shot an appx 10 inch group the other side of 1800 yards that was a 3 shot group, its very workable. First round that was not "in the group" and corrected to drop 3 more in as quickly as I could on target..... its possible.

But then most don't dedicate enough time to any of this long stuff to have a clue really as to what they are doing.

I do stand by my personal thoughts that 200 is to far for most. Or far enough, heck 100 is to far for many. Never stopped any or many of them... I still say a screwed up 100-200 yard shot has a LOT more potential to be a bad hit than a LONG shot where if you miss something, you are likely to MISS totally rahter than just be off a hair... but what would I know.

Nice try but no one has said anything remotely like that.

And if you want to go the "fair chase" route, how long does a shot have to be before it's no longer fair chase?

How close is to close because you can scare the animal before you kill it.

random thoughts -

I wonder if they located the elk at closer range then had to move farther away in order to make the video they wanted.

Seems at odds with teaching anyone anything. Wouldn't you typically start with fundamentals, i.e., begin with the building blocks and gradually move to the fine points and skills. From the 'why' to the 'how'.

Seems like the great animal is secondary to the show. Not about the bull at all.

Colorado is attempting to define fair chase as follows. I don't think the video conflicts with this but heads in that direction.

1. A technology or practice that allows a hunter or angler to locate or take wildlife
without acquiring necessary hunting and angling skills or competency.

2. A technology or practice that allows a hunter or angler to pursue or take wildlife
without being physically present and pursuing wildlife in the field.

3. A technology or practice that makes harvesting wildlife almost certain when the
technology or practice prevents wildlife from eluding take.

I have a major issue with teaching ethics. Always did.

And taught hunter ed in TX for years.

My problem is that ethics varies. And its not something thats anyones business otehr than yours.

Should I tell you who to date? Slut or non slut?

As to fair chase, well that one is going to get really gray.

Where do you draw lines at? We are back to personal things on that issue and it and ethics should be covered ,but left totally up to the individual.

#3 is a point... if I have my 308 with me then how is game going to escape? YOu get my point I hope.

Now if you locate game close and move further off for the shot unless for a clear shot, then I have an issue with you BUT I'm not going to say you can't do it.

It just flat irritates me that those that pick on certain shots, wont' admit its as dangerous for a lot of folks to shoot period, that don't practice, shake, wobble, tremble, use different ammo and so on....

But we'll pick on a minuscule part of the population of hunters or whatever the hell we have to call them these days to no end.

That's some serious shooting. Must have excellent equipment and some practice.

I think it's more unethical to shoot a bear, with it's head in a pile of bait that a "hunter" paid somebody else to set out. Or a cow elk, right off the road, in somebody's pasture during the winter, or a cat bayed in a tree by some dogs, etc.. But to each their own.

To each their own is the key here.

Me, I'm an ok shooter and have ok gear, but I couldn't do it today since I have not shot since about 2004

Usually late season cow hunts are strickly for winter crop damage or reducing herd numbers in areas with over capacity herds where regular hunting seasons are not doing the job. Not too much about hunting .

Alamosa, where can I find more on that?

Sounds like it's aimed at drones.

Good Post...

Lord forbid.

Simply curious. If you keep scopes off MZ rifles, then what distance does that limit shots to basically?

Here you go.
I think drones were on their mind for sure.

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2016/March/Item_3-Draft_Policy_Fair_Chase.pdf

You can go a lot of different ways with this.
Seems to outlaw high fences.
Even low fence ranches, or RFW, with 100% success maybe require no skill and an outcome that is virtually certain.
Some would argue that any scoped rifle provides an unfair advantage.
What about pulling up the live cam from a nearby ski resort on your smartphone?

Depends on the hunter and the sights but in my estimation, for most somewhere around 150 or even less.

Interesting, thanks. Any idea of when that was written?

Looking for a reply from bellydeep.

No, but I'm sure relatively recently. It will be an agenda item up for consideration in the March 9-10 Wildlife Commission meeting. Anyone can listen to the meeting online via the web page.

The linked "draft policy" is extremely broad. If the intention is to prevent drones and other real time surveillance technologies from being used in the hunt, then why not simply state as much. Who is empowered with interpreting this policy if adopted?

Thanks, I may try to listen and see where they're headed.

It's not about what's legal.

The only thing everyone's agreed to, is that you're definitely excluded.

So you don't care about legal vs illegal? Only whatever serves your platform?

BTW you might find that I'm not as opposite of your thoughts as you might assume.

But mine started years ago when I thought anyone that didn't bowhunt was unethical... there certainly is the thought in my mind, that once I grab a rifle, nothing has a chance, is that ethical or sportsmanlike?

Interesting perspective. I like this.

While there's necessarily a very personal component to ethics, ethics, in and of itself, is not relegated to the private realm of the individual.

To be "Legal" is not necessarily to be "Ethical".

The "why"? Because it's fun.

The "how"? use whatever is legal and you enjoy.

Simple as that.

Excellent post. Concur.

Ringman, what does the pronoun "it" refer to in your statement copied above?

It is not so much about "divide and conquer" but more of policing our own ranks. The majority of citizens do not hunt and generally have no pro or con ideas about it. However,when they perceive ( correctly or not) that a particular method is unethical,they will back the antis in seeking legislation to stop that. It has nothing to do with the science of managing big game herds,.

It happened here in Colorado concerning leg hold traps, and spring bear hunting.

The way I see it if snipers can try, with government blessing to take out human targets at any distance in Muslim countries, fully endorsed by your President why can't a 12 year old shoot a critter at similar distance?

Evidently you have NO clue what ethical is.

Its exactly what I do. I get close enough to make the shot or I won't shoot.

kingston,

The "it" refers to the being outdoors in the woods or fields and hunting with the hope of killing the subject of the hunt. The kill is part of the fun. If it wasn't we would buy a license and tag for someone to go do the "dirty deed."

Your denial is a failure to recognize the naturalistic fallacy.

What does this have to do with a discussion of the ethics of what's seen in the video? Are you saying it's ethical because it's fun?

Ethics is defined by you for you, and by me for myself.

What I have is none of your business. And what you prefer to do is none of mine.

Some of us will gravitate to each other obviously because we think along the same lines.

Others only toss stones when its not their way.

My instructors book from teaching hunter education backs this up and always has.

And if your ethics don't change as you age, then you may have a problem in progression according to what normally happens.

LOL...

What does it say specifically, your instructor's book?

kingston,

My question is, what does ethics have to do with hunting? My concern is guys who act like Democrats and try to get others to do it their way. I remember a guy here in Oregon at one of the meetings wanted the state to make it illegal to use anything smaller than 6.5mm for elk. The group didn't like it. If he doesn't want to use a .257, don't. If you don't like long range hunting, where ever that starts, don't participate.

Ringman, many of our hunting regs are based on fair chase and ethics. Like bans on spotlighting and aerial gunning.

Any person who asks the question that Ringman just asked really shouldn't be hunting, IMHO.

Of course, the level of epic stupidity inherent in many of his questions and posts almost defies the law of exponential growth of human ignorance, so that that for what it's worth.

smokepole,



I agree. They are based on what some in authority think are fair chase and what some in authority consider ethical. I agree with them on some things and disagree with them on other things. Until things change I will obey the laws on the books. When the laws change I will obey the new laws. For me ethics have nothing to do with hunting; except the ethics of obeying the laws.

Ringman, fair chase is a conceptual framework through which the ethics of sport hunting is explored. Fair chase is not a rule. Likewise, ethics are not rules. Your limited personal definitions of many terms integral to this discussion prevent you from participating in a meaningful way.

kingston,



"Fair chase is not a rule." Tell that to the Boone & Crockett folks.

"Likewise, ethics are not rules." That is your concept, not mine and many others. My ethics demand I obey God's Word and the laws of the land. My folkways demand I open doors for folks in wheelchairs or crutches or even women.

In my instructor's book it says ethics are "what you do when no one is watching". That's verbatim.

I also believe a man's character has much to do with that decision as well. I question the ethics of the father in the OPs original post. The kid is just doing what dad tells him...unfortunately, he's also learning from that experience.

Legal does not equal ethical, and vice versa. You can do things that are illegal but ethical, and legal but unethical.

I agree. It seems some (more than 1) don't understand that.

Also - I don't know that I'd call it honoring an animal altho I understand the attitude, I do think we should 'regard' or 'appreciate' the animals that we shoot, harvest, kill. I think blatant disregard of wildlife opens the door to things we would not call good.

Jerry

That's a scary statement. Ethics is about morality. It's hard to imagine a man that takes the scripture so seriously but can put his morals in a box and say when they apply and when they don't.

So we have made it clear we all have our own set of values. I think OP's original statement applies to the customs and values of the group as a whole. For example, it's customary to hunt lions with dogs, it's customary to hunt coyotes with long range gear, it's customary to snag paddlefish, trap foxes, etc. So as a group it's up to us to decide what is acceptable or not for elk hunting. I'd like to hear some ideas on what that looks like....

For me it's fairly simple. Not taking a shot that I have no business taking because it's just as likely I'll wound the elk and lose it as kill it. A lot more goes into that than shot selection, including lots of practice, having an accurate weapon, good ammunition (or arrows) and being proficient enough to know the difference between a high percentage shot and a risky one.

That's one reason I defend LR hunters in these debates--they tend to take shooting seriously and put a lot of effort into it. Unlike some detractors (not aimed at anyone here) who still have the same box of ammo they bought three years ago. Lack of effort in becoming proficient is unethical in my opinion.

One of the problems in these debates is that people confuse a "personal ethic" with "ethical/unethical." A personal ethic is just how someone chooses to approach something. If a guy only wants to kill bulls he calls into bow range that's his personal ethic. But if he wants to put out a pile of corn to draw them in, it's pretty much universally agreed that is unethical, and it's illegal because of that universal agreement. I don't think we're anywhere near universal agreement that LR hunting is unethical.

Ringman will never catch on to the level of hypocrisy he's just exhibited, nor will he understand why it's hypocritical.

Absolutely mind blowing hilarity coming from you. You cover these forums with your version of what's moral preaching to the rest of the mere mortals and then you say that?

You just can't make this stuff up...

I never understood the username, now I see that what he meant to call himself was "Circularargumentman".

Well said Smoke.

wildcat33,



Recently I posted on this subject and included Obeying God's Word and the laws of the land. There are people who think using the Bible as your standard is unethical. The idea of ethics presupposes morality which presupposes an Ultimate Standard. There is only One. He has given His standard in His Word, the Bible.

seems there is more to morality than what the bible teaches.

kingston,



First, help me understand where obeying the laws of the land are circularargumenting?

Now, I will help you so you don't have to speculate about where my post name came from. I used to make "Bullet Rings" for awhile. I used to have a website called bulletrigns.com. I charged $175 for them and sold them until my hands hurt. When my hands began to cramp from holding them while polishing them I said, "Thank you, Lord" and quit making them. Often people would send me a fired case they used in a memorable hunt. I would make a ring for them using their case head and a stone they chose. These particular rings were worn a lot back in those days.

One time I was walking into an elevator and a guy was walking out. In passing he said,
"Nice rings."
"How did you even notice them?" I was more than a little curious.
"I work for the FBI. I'm paid to pay attention to details," he said.

That is pure stupidity and does not belong in this conversation. A sniper's job is to disable the enemy-irrelevant as to whether he is dead or not. Actually, a wounded combatant is better, because some dumbass needs to drag him off.

Shooting animals is intended to kill them, NOT HAVE THEM JUST DISABLED to die later!!

There are good points made in this thread and ethics is in the eye of the beholder. I think, however, that it is pure crap that Davidson's are using a kid to push their shooting systems and the BS Berger target bullets.

I know that they have lost at least one lease due to the amount of shot-and-lost animals that the landowner found. THERE is an ethics discussion! The other long-range clown show had a cameraman quit due his disgust at lack of follow-up on assumed MISSED long shots.

Shooting long targets is great fun, but leave it at that. The furry ones deserve better.

I concur and nearly posted similarly on your line of thinking.

A. A muslim extremist is LOWER than any animal.. they want/intend to kill/wound/cripple all/any who aren't muslim.
Animals have NO such ideology.

B. I understand the Government's position in war/battle, however a wounded extremist MIGHT recover.

A DEAD muslim extremist is FAR better. We can't reason with them and they will NOT be converted so....


Jerry

Oh, you're going to Hell for that one...

Besides, at one point it was legal to throw Christians to the lions, so that must have been ethical.

I saw 33 pages and figured the lil stubby Alaskan was showing off his nub

I guess not.......yet

Ted -

WHY throw out the bait ?


Jerry

I'd put my child on that elk, no question. Based on the light, the shot was in the morning. The hike was probably 2 hours to get to the animal. We'd have gotten into position to catch them on the way back down the ridge and set up 300 yds from where we expect them that evening, trying to account accurately for the wind and in a location where we could change position. And we might have bagged a couple depending on location and tags. I've had many great times doing just that. 1400 yds? Yawn.

As to long range shooting, it wasn't that long ago that equipment really limited us to much shorter ranges. Especially in the field with little assurance of accurate ranging. What hasn't changed are environmental variables such as wind shift and animal position shift. Down-range bullet performance is also a limiting factor, especially at such a range. There seem to be a lot of smart people who refuse to acknowledge these boundaries.

Not all of them are that smart.

The great irony of most of the Men who post about what may or may not be ethical as far as elk hunting is many of them have had there cock in another woman while they were married to the one they vowed to be honest and faithful to.

The phuucking hypocrisy one sees on these forums and in every day life is non less than amazing.







Shod

I wouldn't know about that, I have a hard enough time keeping myself on track without worrying about others. So I try to tend to my own business, not other people's.

But who are these people? Maybe you can provide us with a list so we can exclude them from the discussion?

And I hear you on the hypocrisy of it all. By the way, which is worse in your world, committing a sin, or sitting in judgment of others who do?

Boundaries are something you can point to or define. So, tell me, with respect to long-range hunting, where is the boundary between what is right/wrong?

And is it your personal boundary, or should it apply to all hunters?

smokepole,



Excellent question to start the day.

Which version of the Bible would that be? Would it include the books that were arbitrarily omitted? Are you talking about the versions of the books that are included as written in their original languages or the versions that suffered greatly in their multiple translations?

The more I read about the history of the Bible and of ancient times the more convinced I become that the Bible as we know it today, and in particular the New Testament and the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is more a work of man than God. Although I was brought up in a Christian environment and am convinced the human spirit (and the spirit of all living creatures) survives the body, I consider myself more of a Deist than a Christian. The Bible is a self-contradictory collection of books selected by men that excludes many books that I consider more accurate and therefore more important.

Fire-breathing Christians, who can't even agree amongst themselves, would have you believe that unless you subscribe to their particular beliefs you are doomed to eternal Hell. If true, that means most of mankind, past, present and future, would be so condemned. I don't think a loving God would do that, but then I don't think most Christians have any idea what actually constitutes sin. I and many millions of others don't need the Bible to tell us what is ethical and what is not.

Coyote_Hunter,



I think you are asking Which Bible contains the Word of God. The eleven Bibles I've used contain

"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Hebrews 4:12-13.

Therefore I think if you are seriously seeking the Lord all that's necessary is for you to read One and you will be reading God's Word.



None were "arbitrarily omitted." If you study Bible history you will discover the canonized books of the New Testament were being circulated as copies of the original written by the apostles who were instructed by Jesus.



If you study the history of the Bible objectively you will learn the entire Old Testament was translated into Latin 285 years before the birth of Jesus. If you objectively study Bible history you will find out about the Dead Sea Scrolls. What we use today matches what we find in the original Hebrew language. As far as the New Testament goes anyone who is educated about It knows there is a thousand times more evidence for Its accuracy because It has a thousand times more manuscripts or parts of manuscripts than ANY thing else from antiquity. Some of them go back to within thirty years of the actual events They depict.




These sentences show the bias you used in your study.



First tell me what's wrong with contradictions. Second list your favorite half dozen, please.



Fire-breathing Christians agreeing or not agreeing do not change Jesus' Words:

"'Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.'" Matthew 7:13-14



2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
"This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed."

Revelation 20:5-15
"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."



James 4:17
"Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."

Romans 14:23 b
"...whatever is not from faith is sin."

1 John 3:4
"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."



Outside of an Absolute Authority how do you and these millions determine "what is ethical and what is not"? There are communities who believe killing and eating other people is good. Some communities are convinced killing Christians and others who don't agree with them is good. Why are your arbitrary ethics any better than theirs?

"'The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?'" Jeremiah 17:9

You go Circularargumentman!

Your like a living breathing encyclopedia of logical fallacies.

You do make it look painless though.

My point made perfectly and right on cue...

kingston,



Most arguments are circular. If you push them back to their foundation you will discover they are irrational. When one uses God as The Foundation you can't go beyond the God of the Bible: Infinite Intelligent Energy. Even God uses circular reasoning in places. He appeals to Himself at the Absolute Final Authority.

People on the other hand appeal to other finite flawed people or their own flawed information base.

No, not yet. Circularargumentman is still busy dotting his i's and crossing his t's. That'll likely be followed by the ceremonial padding of the walls and ceiling. Then we'll be ready for full on retard.

kingston,

This thread would die if you stopped posting on it.

If you are seriously seeking God's truth you don't need the Bible at all.

And if you wan a list of contradictions go find them yourself - I'm not your gofer.

Coyote_Hunter,



I agree if you are not seeking the Creator God.



I didn't think you had any. That is a cute dodge you have.

If you knew half as much as you think you do you would know the four gospels were NOT all written by Jesus' apostles.

And you would know the Bible ifs rife with self-contradiction.

And you would know that, yes, many books were arbitrarily left out of the Bible because they didn't promote the PC version.

Coyote_Hunter,





Aren't we a little off topic for this thread?

I realize Luke was not an apostle. The rest sounds like a lot ignorant speculation. But I am being just like you here. Maybe you would give me some documentation about some of your assertions, please. You know, like a couple contradictions.

You didn't answer my question about what's wrong with contradictions. Do you have an answer?

The conclusion is??? Let's vote. Isn't that the democratic way.

But we live in a republic

I'm not necessarily interested in the thread dieing, but it would be nice if it got back on topic.

I really don't get the "ethics have nothing to do with hunting because I'm a Christian" thing.

Me neither.

Even more perplexing is how we go from shooting elk at long range, to a theology tutorial, in 35 pages......talk about diversion and disconnect!

I agree, it's time to get back on topic. So, is it ethical to kill unicorns with a .270?

It's ethical to kill unicorns with anything that will kill a unicorn. I've been hunting them unsuccessfully for 29 years. I haven't tried long range unicorn hunting yet. Maybe that's the answer.

I guess I just figured all my "My Little Pony" hunting experience would translate. Boy, was I wrong. They really are two entirely different species. It's crazy, because I always remember seeing them together when I was a kid.

toad,



BobinNH,



I agree with both of you the way toad used the quote. I couldn't find the exact quote toad used in order to correct the context. My argument here is ethics is a personal thing. Some here think anything over 300 yards is unethical. Others draw the line at 500 yards. I am sure there are some here who believe bow hunters wound many more animals that rifle hunters and would like to stop them. I want the pontificators to quit acting like Democrats who, because they dislike something, don't want anyone else doing it.

Well that clears things up.

You do know that the video is a hunt with the purpose of promoting a longrange shooting system. It is not just a 12 year old taking pop shots at game way out there.

https://www.gunwerks.com/why-gunwerks

What difference does that make?

As far as I’m concerned, the fact that it was done in large part if not in totality for the reason you state simply tends to affirm and emphasize that:

A: The intent was to make a long shot.
B. There was no attempt to get closer.
C. The elk was merely an unwilling and unknowing participant in a video intended to promote Gunwerks’ products.
D. Everyone involved in the video was perfectly willing to risk wounding the elk rather than attempting to make sure of a clean, first shot kill.
E. It was a “shooting” not a “hunt”.
F. “Fair chase” was not any part of the shooting.

Coyote hunter. I am unsure about "fair chase"? How does proximity of shooter or lack thereof disqualify one from "fair chase"?

Like it or not, "Fair Chase" does have to be considered. Is 1400 yards fair chase? I say no, but how do you qualify what is?

If you look in the Pope and Young record books, you will see * by some kills, which identifies the let off of a particular bow that was used to kill the animal. Although it was still killed with a bow, there has been recognition to the advantage of the hunter compared to other record book entries.

Where fair chase ends and equipment takes over needs to be identified as it does exist...

How about hunting from a tree stand?

As stated in my post, I was expressing my opinions. Another is that range per se is neither a qualifier nor a disqualifier for “fair chase”. The longer the range, though, I harder it is to convince me that “fair chase” is involved. If I see elk at 2 miles, is it “fair chase” to use a 105mm howitzer to take one?

Good luck getting everyone to agree as to what constitutes “fair chase”.

My guess is that the video was a staged event from the word “go”. The elk were probably on that hillside every day and the shooting spot was, IMNSHO, chosen for the range above all else.

Clearly unethical, since it involves using technology to defeat the animal's senses. You need to be down on the ground, where the animal has a fair chance to detect you.

I don't understand why people climb those things.....you can fall out and get hurt.


But make no mistake....deer do look up!

Exactly.

I'd like to know what natural predators to deer and elk live in and hunt from trees.

Anything that increases the kill range helps defeat an animals senses. everyone that uses a firearm or a bow or even a lance uses technology to help defeat the quarries senses and is therefore "unethical"?

That's not what I'm saying. We all use technology to some degree. It's just that some want to draw a line beyond which fair chase ends. Usually, just beyond where they choose to fall on the continuum.

AGREED!!!

We have the scopes
We have the rifles.
We have the bullets
We have the skills.
That 12 year old might be defending your country in a few years knocking them scum bags jihadists in your own backyard. Don't discourage them. LOL

I hope not! First shot kills are an important component when shooting Muzzies...

Boy I'm glad mountain lions don't climb trees and jump on elk...

OH WAIT !

That outfit has the stench of John Burns. Too many variables involved not to wound a lot more animals than kill.

I do recall Burns and a shooter with a pile of ejected empty cases laying around and the shooter finally hits the target. Never did remember seeing Burns make a game recovery.

All that said, if one can do it with regularity, do it.

How many dead animals?

Shizzamm Gomer!!

My point exactly... Shoot and shoot until you connect with the only one there. He doesn't know he's being shot at. If there is finally a hit, that's the only shot shown, and no video of a recovery.

And be chunkin spears...

No hunting with supressors either...